Reform UK Vaccines Debate Grows Over Council Leaders’ Views

Published: 29 December 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

A growing debate has emerged around Reform UK after a significant proportion of its local authority leaders publicly expressed sceptical views about vaccines and wider public health measures. Across England, Reform UK currently leads or holds the largest representation on twelve councils. Of those, leaders in at least four authorities have made statements questioning vaccination policies, drawing sharp criticism from health professionals, ministers, and opposition politicians who warn of serious risks to public confidence in healthcare.

The issue has intensified scrutiny of Reform UK’s approach to health policy at a time when the United Kingdom is facing declining vaccination uptake and renewed outbreaks of preventable diseases. Public health officials have repeatedly warned that hesitation or distrust surrounding vaccines can quickly undermine decades of progress in controlling infections such as measles, whooping cough, and seasonal influenza.

Among the most prominent figures involved is Linden Kemkaran, leader of Kent County Council and the party’s first council leader. In media interviews earlier this year, she suggested that an inquiry should examine claims of potential links between Covid-19 vaccines and cancer. Medical experts have consistently stated there is no credible evidence supporting such claims. Nevertheless, Kemkaran argued that controversial subjects should remain open to discussion, framing the debate as an issue of free speech rather than settled science.

In Worcestershire, council leader Jo Monk acknowledged the historical success of vaccination programmes but told a council meeting that she remained undecided about certain immunisations. She cited personal experiences and conversations with medical professionals holding differing views. Her comments prompted concern among opposition councillors, who warned that even measured uncertainty from senior political figures could discourage parents from vaccinating their children.

Warwickshire’s council leader, George Finch, also drew attention after speaking on national radio about the childhood chickenpox vaccine. He questioned the need for widespread immunisation, describing chickenpox as a normal part of growing up and referencing traditional “chickenpox parties.” His remarks came shortly before the government announced plans to expand the childhood vaccination schedule to include the chickenpox jab, aiming to reduce complications in vulnerable children and lessen pressure on working parents.

In Durham, council leader Andrew Husband faced widespread condemnation following a social media post, later deleted, in which he described vaccines as “horrific” and compared them to crimes against humanity. Although the post was removed, screenshots circulated widely online, reigniting debate about the responsibility of elected officials when discussing health matters on public platforms.

The controversy extends beyond local government. At Reform UK’s national conference in September, cardiologist Aseem Malhotra delivered a speech suggesting that Covid-19 vaccines had caused cancer within the royal family. The claim was swiftly denounced by medical authorities and fact-checkers. Malhotra, who advises vaccine-sceptic figures in the United States, has repeatedly argued that Covid vaccines pose greater risks than benefits, a position rejected by major health organisations worldwide.

David Bull, chair of Reform UK, later described Malhotra as someone who helped shape the party’s health policy, further fuelling concerns that vaccine scepticism may be embedded more deeply within the party’s leadership. Senior Reform figures, including Nigel Farage and Richard Tice, have also previously raised questions about pandemic-era vaccination strategies, contributing to a perception of institutional doubt rather than isolated opinions.

Health minister Zubir Ahmed, an NHS transplant and vascular surgeon, issued a strongly worded response to the remarks. Speaking from his dual perspective as a clinician and politician, Ahmed warned that such statements could have real-world consequences. He emphasised that vaccines remain one of the most effective tools in modern medicine, protecting millions and preventing avoidable deaths each year.

Ahmed argued that politicians who cast doubt on established vaccination programmes risk eroding trust at a critical moment for the National Health Service. With hospitals under sustained pressure and primary care services stretched, he said, any increase in preventable illness would place additional strain on an already burdened system. He also highlighted the danger to children, elderly people, and those with compromised immune systems, who rely heavily on high community vaccination rates for protection.

Public health leaders have echoed these concerns, pointing to recent data showing falling uptake of routine childhood vaccines in parts of England. Measles outbreaks have already been recorded in several regions, prompting emergency vaccination drives and renewed public awareness campaigns. Experts warn that misinformation, especially when amplified by elected officials, can rapidly undo years of careful public health messaging.

Reform UK has sought to defend its position, stating that it supports proven vaccination programmes while rejecting what it describes as “blind obedience.” A party spokesperson argued that open discussion and questioning help build trust rather than weaken it. Critics, however, counter that questioning well-established science without credible evidence risks legitimising fringe theories and confusing the public.

Political analysts note that Reform UK’s stance may resonate with a segment of voters who remain distrustful of institutions following the Covid-19 pandemic. However, they caution that health policy differs fundamentally from other political debates because of its direct impact on lives. Unlike fiscal or immigration policy, misleading statements about vaccines can influence personal medical decisions with immediate consequences.

As the debate continues, pressure is mounting on Reform UK’s leadership to clarify its official health policy and distance itself from claims contradicted by scientific consensus. Medical organisations, including the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, have reiterated their commitment to evidence-based guidance and called on all political parties to support clear, responsible communication around vaccines.

For many observers, the controversy underscores a broader challenge facing modern democracies. In an era of social media amplification and declining trust, the words of public figures carry unprecedented weight. Whether Reform UK recalibrates its messaging or continues to frame vaccine scepticism as healthy debate may shape not only its political future, but also public confidence in one of the most successful public health interventions in history.